Introduction:-Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose[1] is a case that covers the ambit of minors
agreement. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with
a minor. In India, an agreement or a contract with a minor ( a person who is
below the age of 18 yrs. or any person who has not completed 18 yrs. of age
legally) is void ab-initio (void from very beginning) such rules and regulations
are made because, according to law such people does not comes under the ambit of
capacity of contract or agreement of doing so.

According to courts opinion, any person who is below 18 yrs of age or who has
not completed the age of 18 yrs. of age i.e. a minor cannot intend to create
contract or make major decisions. This case has basically provided us with the
knowledge that, since minors are legally incompetent to give their assent so
they need to deserve or be provide with the protection in their dealings with
the other major persons. After this case , any sought of contact or agreement
with the minor was void from beginning. Such contracts are "void ab-initio[2]".

In this case, the Privy Council declared the law that any contact by minor or
any minor's agreement is "absolutely void" and it has also been strictly
followed and is still growing also.Section 10[3]of Indian Contact Act, 1872
provides for what agreements are contracts? and Section 11[4] provides that a
person who are competent to contract.

Facts:-The facts of this case were as follows:-
v Dharmodas Ghose, was the respondent in this case. He was a minor (i.e. has not
completed the 18 years of age) and he was the sole owner of his immovable
property. The mother of Dharmodas Ghose was authorized as his legal custodian by
Calcutta High Court.

v When he went for the mortgage of his own immovable property which was done in
the favor of appellant i.e. Brahmo Dutta, he was a minor and he secured this
mortgage deed for Rs. 20,000 at 12% interest rate per year.

v Bhramo Dutta who was a money lender at that time and he secured a loan or
amount of Rs. 20,000, and the management of his business was in the control of Kedar Nath, and Kedar Nath
acted as the attorney of Brahmo Dutta.

v Dharmodas Ghose's mother sent a notification to Brahmo Dutta informing him
about the minority of Dharmodas Ghose on the date on which such mortgage deed
was commenced.

v but the proportion or sum of loan that was actually provided was less than Rs. 20,000.

v The negotiator or representative of the defendant, who actually acted instead
of on behalf of money lender has given money or sum to the plaintiff, who was a
minor and he fully had knowledge about the incompetency of the plaintiff to
perform or enter into contract and also that he was incompetent legally to
mortgage his property which belonged to him.

v After that, on 10thSept. 1895 Dharmodas Ghose along with his mother brought
an legal suit or action against Brahmo Dutta by saying that the mortgage that
was executed by Dharmodas was commenced when he was a minor or infant and so
such mortgage was void and disproportionate or improper and as a result of which
such contract should be revoked or rescinded.

v When this petition or claim was in process, Brahmo Dutta had died and then
further the appeal or petition was litigated or indicted by his executor's.

v The plaintiff argued or confronted that in such case no relaxation or any
sought of aid should be provided to them because according to him, defendant had
deceitfully or dishonestly misinterpreted the fact about his age and because if
mortgage is cancelled at the request by defendant i.e. Dharmodas Ghose.

Issues Raised:-
Issues Raised in this case were:-
v Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10[5], 11[6], of Indian Contract
Act, 1872 or not?
v Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he had
received by him under such deed or mortgage or not?
v Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or not?

Judgement:-
v According to he verdict of Trial Court, such mortgage deed or contract that
was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant was void as it was
accomplished by the person who was an infant at the time of execution of
mortgage.
v When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filled
an appeal in the Calcutta High Court.
v According to the decision of Calcutta High Court, they agreed with the verdict
that was given by Trial Court and it dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta.
v Then he later went to Privy Council for the appeal and later the Privy Council
also dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta and held that there cannot be any
sought of contract between a minor and a major person.
v The final decision that was passed by the Council were :-
1.Any sought of contract with a minor or infant is void/ void ab-initio
(void from beginning).
2.Since minor was incompetent to make such mortgage hence the contact such
made or commenced shall also be void and id not valid in the eyes of law.
3.The minor i.e. Dahrmodas Gosh cannot be forced to give back the amount of
money that was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise that
was executed in a contract.

Principles of Law:-
The principles of law that were laid down in this case are:-
v Any contract with a minor or an infant is neither valid nor voidable but is
void ab-initio(void from beginning)
v Section 64[7]of Indian Contract Act,1872 is only applicable in the case,
where the parties entering in contact are competent to make such contract and is
not applied to cases where there is no contract made at all.
v The legal acts done by an representative or any knowledge of an agent means
that such acts done or having knowledge of anything is of his principal.

Majority Act, 1875:-
Majority Act, 1875 was enforced on 2ndMarch 1857. It is a law that was enacted
to introduce various laws relating to the "law of majority". Prior to the
enactment of this act, there was no surety or certainty about the age limit of
attaining majority. This act has basically fixed the age limit of attaining
majority and i.e. 18 years of age. It states that, every single person who is
domiciled in India can only achieve the age of majority only after the
completion of age of 18 years, and not before that at any cost. There comes an
exception in the case were any particular personal law provides the age of
attaining majority only and if not provided than, else any person domiciled by
India shall only achieve majority after the completion of 18 years of age.

In the case were the guardian or a custodian is appointed by any court of
justice for a minor in case of a person or his property or for both before the
age of 18 years, then in such a case the age of majority would be after
attaining the age of 21 years instead of attaining 18 years of age.

Critical Analysis:-
In the case of Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, the Privy Council strictly
defined that any sought of contract or agreement with a minor[8]or with any
infant shall be null and void. All contacts with the minors will be void ab-initio.
Majority Act, 1875 outlined the definition of a minor, according to
such act, any person who is below the age of 18 years or has not completed the
age of 18 years shall not be competent to create or enter into any sought of
contact or agreement.

According to me any sought of contract in which a minor is party to contract or
whether he/she is involved in it shall be void. This perception is correct
because minor or infant comes in the category of such people who cannot give
there free consent along with the reason that they are not in a situation where
they can think in a manner in which a prudent or an ordinary person could do it.
An agreement is a deal where free an equal consent of all parties are given but
in case of a minor there consent can be dominated by major ones as a result of
which , it leads to the violation of one of the condition to form a contract,
i.e. free consent[9](a consent is said to be free when it is not caused by
Coercion[10], Undue Influence[11], Fraud[12], Miss representation[13]and
Mistake[14]).

The court also through its verdict has propounded that, a contact with an infant
shall be declared null and void it means that it is neither valid nor voidable.
According to me, minors contract shall be avoided and stopped because it
sometimes lead to the harmful social, economic and legal effects on the lives
and conditions of the minors. Any such person who commits such offence shall be
strictly punished by court of law, either through imprisonment or with a fine
or with both according to the ambit of the offence committed by the major
person.

Conclusion:-
In Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, at the end it can be concluded that any
agreement or deed in which minor is party to it or is included in such contact
by any way, such deed or agreement shall be declared null and void because such
agreement is no agreement in the eyes of law. Any agreement with an infant
cannot be administered against them. In cases minors parents or custodians shall
not be liable for the dealings done by the minor without their consent or
knowledge, and hence they will not be liable to return the amount back taken by
the minor out of the moral obligations. But parents and guardians will be liable
to repay back the amount when minor or an infant acted with the consent of the
his/her parents or his/ her custodians. If any minor has got any profit out of
the void contact the he/she cannot be forced to reimburse it back or make
compensation for it.

End-Notes
[1]ILR(1903) 30 Cal. 539 (PC)
[2]Void from beginning
[3]All agreements are contact if they are made by the free consent of the
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a
lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared void by law.
[4]Every person is competent to contract who is the age of majority according to
law to which he is subjected, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified
from contracting by any law to which he is subjected.
[5]All agreements are contact if they are made by the free consent of the
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a
lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared void by law.
[6]Every person is competent to contract who is the age of majority according to
law to which he is subjected, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified
from contracting by any law to which he is subjected.
[7]When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, other
party thereto need not to perform any promise therein contained in which he is a promisor. The party rescinding a voidable contract if has received any benefit
thereunder from the another party to such contract, restore such benefit , to
the person from whom it was received.
[8]Any person who is below the age of 18 years or who has not completed 18
years of age.
[9]Section 14 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[10]Section 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[11]Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[12]Section 17 of Indian Contract Act , 1872.
[13]Section 18 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[14]Section 20, 21 and 22 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.